Mix Challenge

Well done to the round 2 participants and disappointed I didn't get through, thought i nailed it
Aren't there supposed to be 10 going through though?

Chriswilson83 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 08:56 CEST

Hi Dirk,

Disappointed I didn't get to round 2 but I wish you hadn't of allowed people though who haven't followed the rules, you have some who didn't provide the correct file rates and some who didn't provide mixing notes.

I think both of those things should have been automatic fails really as thet were clearly stated in the rules.

hey chris, thanks for your message. i think, technically you are probably right: i admit that i do not know all the rules. i haven't read even 1 mixing note, to be honest. i wouldn't remember who used these or those plugins anyway. i just don't care as long as it sounds good to me. so i wasn't aware that there must be notes. i think notes for the winning mix would be useful, though. regarding the format i insist on 48/24 for the final "product" to be eligible as the winner. that said, if think this should be about mixing, music, fun, and not primarily obeying rules. but that is just my personal view. best regards, dirk.

gloukin wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 09:01 CEST

Well done to the round 2 participants and disappointed I didn't get through, thought i nailed it
Aren't there supposed to be 10 going through though?

i can explain this

i listened several times to all of the mixes, switching between them and i always ended up with the first 6 mixes on my list. 7-10 were more or less random. so i decided to keep those 6 + 1 special mention. i am not sure if this is also against the rules, but i am just the song provider.

dima510 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 07:38 CEST

5.) well balanced mix. vocals: a bit less >10k, instead more warmth would be good. also the organ seems to be very dominant
to my ears. NOTE: you will have to provide 48/24 to be able to win.

Hi Dirk,

I'm pleased you like what I did. I'll gladly address your remarks. This is my second time I enter a competition here, and I didn't realise the sample rate was a strict requirement. My bad! I work in 44.1 to get just some extra CPU power (taking into account that all commercial music eventually ends up at 44.1 anyway). But I'll make do, and deliver in 48 kHz. Thx for giving me the chance to correct this.

My best,
Louis

dima510 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 07:38 CEST

result of round 1 -


special mention for the best filename: "don't leave me - clueless"

:-))))

HAVE A NICE MIXING WEEKEND!

dirk.

I think this is how those not selected feel, however, no feedback just means I'm not good enough, must try harder
Its an interesting challenge, plus the chance to experiment with something not of your own brings its own rewards.

Before I kick off Mix Round 2:
I've been PM'd with some criticism and concerns. I'll get this sorted out with the Song Provider first, then I'll start off Round 2. Apologies for the waiting time, but please do not start your edit yet.



However - right off the bat, the rules will be strict from MC058 from now on.

A TL;DR refresher of the already rules:

• Provide your edit in the same sampling rate and bitrate as the provided source material, or higher (I will add to the rules: do not sample rate convert or dither down)
• It is mandatory to document the mix/production
• do not pre-master the mix

Round 2 consists of old cats and newcomers. I even sent out a reminder to get reacquainted with the rule set. If they are continuously broken, I have to be more strict, which in turn means that people might be scared off. But this has been going on for a while (incl. ignoring the provided TXTs, ignoring the add-on rules, or not reading the Rules and Guidelines altogether), and I really do not want to argue about any of this anymore. The rules are still fair, and we do need a certain base line for everyone. Paying attention to detail is important.

(although the SRC and Dithering of MP3 files is done by certain hosts automatically. Providing MP3s is not mandatory, but something worth noting)



I expect every participant of Round 2 to adhere to the rules this time around. Meaning:

• production will be provided in 48kHz/24bit
• provided proper documentation
• material will not exceed -1dBTP
• material will not exceed -14LUFS ILk

This is a mixing challenge, and loudness normalization is not required.



Please keep an eye on the thread.

dima510 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 09:11 CEST

i admit that i do not know all the rules. i haven't read even 1 mixing note, to be honest.

This is my second challenge here. The first was "ghost limb" which was disqualified because I used source material to enhance other parts of the song (without changing the structure), so it ventured on "remix" territory. It was reiterated that rules must be followed. OK, that's cool. Lesson learned. Said to myself "Next time I will not manipulate ANY files beyond correction, and straight mix." Then we see the results for this complemented with basically a "screw the rules" response.

I'll be sure to leave off mix notes and skip other important rules for next time. You know, to increase my odds. That's the message I'm getting, here.

Mister Fox wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 24, 2019 15:29 CEST

Before I kick off Mix Round 2:
I've been PM'd with some criticism and concerns. I'll get this sorted out with the Song Provider first, then I'll start off Round 2. Apologies for the waiting time, but please do not start your edit yet.

Hi Mister Fox,

The bickering about technicalities instead of good mixes is not the way to go Imo. I think Dirk's approach is very fair and should be a reflection of how judging should be done: quality and musicality of the mixes. It is disheartening when you're not selected for the second round, but it is equally disappointing when you make a real good mix and it is rejected because it's -13.9LUFS or 44.1kHz and what not. It is clear that suggestions for a simpler system (cfr Splice, Metapop, Puremix) are not discussible and that's your prerogative. Therefore, to be fair, but mostly out of disagreement/protest, I just want to let you know that I'm opting out of the 2nd round of this competition.

Kind regards,
Louis

hey folks, i am sorry if i am causing some confusion here. just so you know: i am new to the mix challenge and i offered this months song because the pool was at ZERO.

my understanding of the statistics-post by mr. fox was, that the host did not disqualify any mixes. so i used all of them. fullstop.

as for the mix notes: do you REALLY prefer a judging that is partly based on the mix notes, so that mix notes influence the result of the first round? like: oh, that guy put a lot of effort and thoughts in his mix, so even if it does not sound as good as others, it can THEREFORE make it to round 2? not sure about that... i think as a judge i HAVE to ignore mix notes. these are for YOU to compare others to your approach.

as for the file format: i found all entries good enough to be judged. and i made clear that i insist on the correct format for the finals. i thought that would be an acceptable compromise.

as for the loudness: i listened to all mixes at exactly the same loudness and i made clear that it is useless to provide louder mixes than -16 LUFS. if you decide to mix louder, your file will sound worse when played back at -16 LUFS.

i fully understand your disappointment if i did not select your mix for round 2. i know all of you spent a lot of time and work. but at the end of the day i HAVE to decide based on my ears and my taste and my experiences. that is what i did as good as i could.


cheers, dirk.

Congrats to the top 7, whatever will happen.
We should comment a lot this time, hope I can make it this time for another 10 comments at least.

Big thanks to Dirk, for bringing in new aspects into the show! (Besides the nice and challenging content.)
Actually, it is very clear that the mixtrack trade pool will dry out, when return value for the song provider is not sufficient.
This adds to the severity of the legal situation, that is also different in various countries. (Like you can't be under GEMA.)

This idea about weaker format restrictions in round 1 could make a lot of sense, when we think of the economic factor.
The creators of the best mixes might already have some business running, that competes the working time and CPU capacity for a contribution here in the contest.
Additional printing/freezing of stems, longer wait time for the rendering, invest in checking out all those hi-res issues, it may not appear feasible until round 2.

I support one sentence by Dirk: Good sound (supporting the impact and style of the song) should have priority above anything else, because this is where the money is, when you have to sell product, or "move units" as they used to say in the old times of vinyl.
When the sound hits the nail, anything else is a matter of budget, negotiation, and nudging details.

Furthermore, the global factor to me looks as the best opportunity of all. A viewpoint from a scene-proof engineer from India, Japan, Ecuador, Nigeria, ... ... might introduce lots of creativity and chances of networking.

(e.g. why are the Koreans so much better in globalizing their music industry than the Germans?? (Among the non-Americans.)

And then also, the best thing for the top 3 probably is not to win a plugin, but more mixing gigs.
Those who are not that good, like me, might well afford another plugin that is still lacking in the tool box..